Intuition

In the last few articles we have not only been questioning common sense, we have also seen that we are not very rational when it comes to making decisions (1 and 2).

If common sense is so bad at dealing with complex social phenomena, why isn’t this limitation more evident? After all, in the physical world we use a lot of our intuition to solve problems every day, as when we catch a ball or a flying disc.

But the truth is that it doesn’t work there either. Suppose you hold a bullet in your left hand, and in your right a gun loaded with exactly the same kind of bullet, both at the same height, and you drop the bullet at the same moment you pull the trigger. Even though physics tells us both will hit the ground at the same time(*), we tend to believe that the bullet fired from the gun will stay in the air longer.

The physical world is full of examples that defy common sense. Anyone who has studied quantum physics or relativity could tell you so. But you don’t need to study sciences that deep to find examples that contradict our intuition. Why do we see more shooting stars after midnight? Why is the sea blue? Why, when you pull the plug in a bathtub, does the water spin one way in the northern hemisphere and the opposite way in the southern hemisphere? What is the proportional distance between moon and earth? And so on.

But, despite the frustration physics produces when we study it, at least its consistency in contradicting our common sense has forced us to develop science. In science, theories are tested with careful experimental observations. In fact, great care is taken to reduce experimental error, because we have to trust the data over our intuition. And yet, when it comes to studying humanity we rarely feel that the scientific method is needed. We all think we can give an intuitive answer about human behavior; there, data and its careful collection don’t matter. So when it comes to matters of human behavior, the idea of spending time and effort on “scientific” studies strikes us as unnecessary.

Nevertheless, we spend large amounts of money and effort on campaigns or policies based on poorly conducted surveys, with no grounding in the study of human behavior, which is, as we have seen, pretty irrational. If we are irrational, why do we insist on expecting people to behave rationally in response to a campaign or public policy?

A recent example: there are studies showing that the warnings on cigarette packs depicting the effects of cancer actually increase the desire to smoke. In light of what we’ve seen so far, that’s no surprise.

“What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”: it seems Nietzsche’s old aphorism echoes in these smokers’ heads. It also happens that smokers simply ignore these warnings, no matter how strong they are.

The studies of human behavior, of psychology, are surprising,

“The psychologist Art Markman described his findings, according to which warnings about health problems have the ironic effect of making people feel better about their addictions, rather than worse. Markman’s theory is that confronting people with their mortality (“tobacco can kill you”) causes an increase in their self-esteem.

So a person who identifies as a smoker, as opposed to one who doesn’t see cigarettes as something important, ends up reinforcing the habit. For them, knowing that cigarettes can kill them increases their desire to keep smoking.

A University of Missouri study found that hardened smokers inhale the smoke even more deeply when they are confronted with a warning image on their packs. (3)

Professor Michael Siegel proposes another interesting path. What happens is that it’s the brand, the colors associated with the cigarette brand, that draws the smoker in, no matter that the warning takes up 50% of the pack. The idea being proposed in Australia is that 50% of the pack carry the warning images and the rest of the pack be left blank, with a small label indicating the cigarette brand. We’ll have to wait and see what happens with these changes.

Is it the brand that draws the smoker in? On the other hand, we now know that even a warning of mortal danger can be stimulating, especially for the youngest, who see smoking as a challenge. A not-so-minor detail: Philip Morris not only supports this kind of warning, it helped and promoted the law that first imposed them (4)

In light of these findings, based on these studies (and if they are serious and well backed by evidence), it would seem that a more effective measure would be for cigarettes to be sold in a completely white pack, with no brands or logos. But our intuition tells us that kind of measure will never be taken ;)

Notes:

(*) This is a result of elementary physics, something you should know by the time you leave school, and if you didn’t know it, be worried. If you have doubts about the physics of the bullet example, I suggest reading this: http://www.proyectosalonhogar.com/EnciclopediaIlustrada/Ciencias/MovimientoProyectiles.htm

\(1\) Irrational decisions

\(2\) Defaults.

\(3\) This news story at Bio Bio Chile.

\(4\) Bloomberg: Gruesome Cigarette-Pack Warnings Say Too Much: Michael Siegel